TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing grounds of appeal: "1. That the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is erroneous, contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 27,12,675/- towards the labour expenses incurred by the appellant during the year, by treating the same as bogus expenses without relying on the submissions made by the appellant. 3. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,04,100/- under section 40A(3) of the Act without appreciating the fact that said expenses falls under specific exceptions listed in Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules, 1962. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the assessee, Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CA, referring to dates and events, submitted that the assessee has filed return of income with ACIT, Circle-5, Visakhapatnam, however, notice under section 143(2) dated 18.09.2015 was issued by the ITO, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam who was a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Further, the case has been transferred to ACIT, Circle-5, Visakhapatnam on 19.11.2015 without any order under section 127 of the Act. Further, ACIT, Circle-5, Visakhapatnam, issued another notice under section 143(2) r.w.s 129 of the Act on 20.11.2015 which was beyond six months from the end of the financial year, in which the return was furnished. Since the first notice issued by the ITO, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam, being non-juris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the validity of Assessment Order passed by the Ld.AO. Therefore, he submitted that the legal ground raised by the assessee, challenging validity of the Assessment Order, passed by the Ld.AO should be rejected. 9. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant dates and events of filing of return, notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2015 by the ITO, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam, subsequent transfer of case from ITO, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam to ACIT, Circle-5, Visakhapatnam on 19.11.2015 and subsequent another notice issued under section 143(2) r.w.s 129 of the Act dated 20.11.2015 by the ACIT, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the subsequent notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 20.11.2015 is beyond six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished and barred by limitation. Further, assuming for a moment, the second notice, was issued in pursuant to transfer of case in terms of section 129 of the Act, the fact remains that there is no order under section 127 to for transfer of case and without any formal order, the Ld.AO does not have any jurisdiction. Therefore, in our considered view, on this count also, the Assessment Order passed by the Ld.AO cannot be sustained. 12. Coming to the final lacuna in the Assessment Order, the ACIT, Circle-5, Visakhapatnam, passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing officer of Circle 8(1) declaring a loss. On 3-9-2014, Respondent No. 2, who happens to be ACIT, Circle 31(1), issued notice to the Petitioner under section 143(2) of the Act to scrutinise the returns. The said AO of Circle 31(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee. On 21-7-2015, Respondent No. 1, who is the assessing officer of the Petitioner, issued notice under section 142(1) for furnishing the details of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14. 4. On 27-7-2015, the Petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent No. 1 to ignore the proceedings initiated vide Notice, dated 21-7-2015 sent bb Respondent No. 1 since the Petitioner had not received any notice from Respondent No. 1 under section 143(2) of the Act within the time li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Respondent No. 2 and hence notice was sent by the Office of Respondent No. 2. He further referred to Section 124(3)(a) of the Act and contended that the Petitioner ought to have questioned the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 immediately after receiving the notice under section 143(2) of the Act. 7. As far as the last submission is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is only if the Petitioner had filed a return under section 139(1) of the Act with Respondent No. 2 would the question of drawing the attention of Respondent No. 2 for delay in issuing a notice have arisen. Since the Petitioner is not obliged to file any return, the question of availing section 124(3) (a) of the Act did not arise. 8....